L’Affaire Scruggs: the Government Responds

Last week, attorneys for famed plaintiffs lawyer Dickie Scruggs and two other indictees accused of bribing a Mississippi judge, submitted a handful of motions: a motion to change venue, a motion to dismiss much of the case, and a motion to submit certain evidence. (Click here for a post from last week, which includes links to the defense briefs and exhibits.)

Well, today was the government’s turn. Prosecutors offered rebuttals to all the motions, and teed up its own choice selections of wiretap material. Click here, here, here, here, here and here for the motions, and here, here and here for transcripts from the wiretap. Tomorrow, Judge Neal Biggers is slated to hold hearing on the motions.

The juiciest bit of evidence unveiled today might well be a transcript from a taped conversation in which Scruggs, his son and colleague Sid Backstrom discuss how Judge Lackey’s order should read in a case filed against them.

A tape of the Nov. 1 meeting indicates that Balducci went to the Scruggs Law Firm with a draft copy of an order to be issued by Lackey. According to the government, by this time, Balducci already had delivered $30,000 to Lackey for a favorable ruling in a dispute involving legal fees.

Balducci discussed the order in some detail with Zach Scruggs and Backstrom before moving into Dickie Scruggs’ office to go over it with him, according to the tape.

The defense has basically argued that the government, along with Balducci, engaged in an elaborate set-up. A trial is scheduled for March 31.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit against the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute. Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.